(Presumably, that means his unfortunate musical friend got Stanley's terrible grades.) So just how accurate ARE our children's school reports?
A recent thread on an online parenting forum revealed a litany of mistakes.
After all, there's only so many ways of saying the same thing.
Many schools use 'comment banks' or computer-generated reports that churn out formulas such as 'could do better' or 'achieving expected targets'.
All the high achievers will have 'a good understanding of scientific concepts', while most of the low achievers will 'need support with using capital letters'.
Another teacher trick is to recycle last year's reports to fit children of similar ability in the current class.
Someone else's child was told they 'produce good work' for geography but 'need to be more involved in class'. What the teacher had failed to spot was the child was entirely absent from the geography class, having dropped the subject a year earlier.
As for 'John' himself, if he has never encountered constructive criticism he will find the real world a shock.
Perhaps we parents can get our own back with Gordon Brown's plans for a new Annual Report Card in which parents contribute feedback on the performance of their children's teachers.
All teachers have to do is cut and paste the relevent comments onto the child's report.
The market-leading program is an annually updated system which offers 12,000 generic statements divided into subjects, levels and abilities.
Now the old style 'disruptive, never shuts up' translates to 'needs to resist the urge to distract others'; 'John is lazy' becomes 'John has yet to reach his potential', which sounds almost like praise.